Causation Flashcards
What is the equation for causation
Factual causation + legal causation = result
Factual causation definition
D can only be guilty if the consequence would have happened BUT FOR the Ds conduct. If the consequence would have happened anyway, there is no liability
White 1910
But for test was not met because V would have died anyway
Padgett 1983
But for test was met because V would not have died but for Ds actions
Legal causation definition
Factual causation alone is not enough
Legal causation must be proved as well. There are three parts and they are:
De minimus rule
Thin skull rule
Novus Actus Interveniens
What does the de minimus rule mean
It means there must be an insignificant, minute or trifling link. The original injury money be more than the minimal cause of death
The case for this is Kimsey
Kimsey 1996
There must be “something more than a slight trifling link”
What does the thin skull rule mean
The D must take his victim as he finds him
The case for this is Blaue
Blaue 1975
D was convicted of murder. Still guilty as he had to take his victim as he finds her
What are novus actus interveniens
There must be a direct link between the Ds conduct and the consequence. This is know as the chain of causation. If something else happens after in between the Ds conduct and consequence then it may break the chain of causation
The chain can be broken in 3 ways:
- act of a 3rd party
- Vs own act
- natural but unpredictable events
Smith 1959
Medical treatment is unlikely to break the Chain of causation even when it’s ‘thoroughly bad’ and reduces the chances of recovery by 75%
Cheshire 1991
Medical treatment in unlikely to break the chain unless it was potent in causing death
Malcherek 1981
Doctors switching off life support machine will not break the chain of causation
Jordan 1956
In exceptional cases, medical treatment can break the chain if it is ‘palpably wrong’
Roberts 1971
The chain will not be broken if the actions of V are ‘reasonable’
